well, I just read that according to Chris Avellone, kreis is about 50 years old, so it's entirely possible for her to be Brianna's mother, and as far as her being physically tainted by the DS, he said that her desing is based on Palpatine, so it's entirely possible(even probable) that the same thing that happened to palpatine happened to her.

Also, I got that from wikipedia, so it may not be entirely reliable, but it would help somewhat in the argument for Kreia being Brianna's mother.

im sure this has been mentioned but what about when mical says that at the end revan returned to his first master and kreia says revan returned to me in the end but the game says that kae was revans first master sooooo........?

There is no Palpatine. No Empire. No Jedi. There is no Light. No Dark... Just you, and I, here, now.

Good link Ravnas. When you add all that up its about as clear as you can be without just coming out and saying "Kreia is Handmaiden's mother." The only part that is questionable is the "I honor the face of my mother" I don't think their faces look alike at all. Just my two cents.

Maybe, but then again, maybe not. I think that Brianna has no idea that Kreia is her mother, or surely she would have said something. Brianna seems to respect her mother and I'm sure is she was aware that her mother was vstaying in the same ship, there would have been some communication at least.

What is intesting is that through the whole game, Handmaiden and Kreia have very little contact on the Hawk. There are scenes of her and Atton, Disciple, but no HM. Interesting...

It just raises more questions (or statements) to the motive "why" if that was going to be the case!

-Why wasn’t that revealed in the game itself? Kreia died, end of story. What would be the point of not revealing it after the game’s events because now it becomes a side issue which really weakens the plot behind it if it were true.

-Why hasn’t it been revealed after 3 ½ years since the game has been released? What are they waiting for? Don’t say KOTOR III because that would be something that would distract the story of the next chapter of the game series. The only way that would work out well is if both Kreia and Brianna were main characters in that game. That wouldn’t be the case.

spoiler:

Could you imagine if they were to leave hints about the Revan revelation, but never actually revealed in K1, but revealed in TSL? That would be bad storytelling, especially since Revan was just talked about, but was never around in the game.

-The female Exile is now considered the canon way of playing the game. That means the Handmaiden’s role is has been limited to just stealing the Ebon Hawk, telling your party to lay down their weapons, asking Atris about caring for the Exile once, and other optional conversations you could have with her at the Polar Region. Once you leave, her small role in the game is over.

-The hints used to support the theory they’re the same person are easily debunked making it just pure speculation without conclusive facts.

-Kreia makes it clear that she was cast out because of her teachings and beliefs. It was also stated that Kae was exiled for having a child. In TSL, it was clear that Kreia is against love, but wants to prove that her teachings are right. If love was something she thought was right, she would be in the same boat as Jolee Bindo in how she felt about it. If she did believe in love, she wouldn’t have changed her mind about it because that would prove in her mind that one of the Jedi teachings was correct and I don’t think she would dare do that. If there were any issues she agreed with the Jedi on; it would be teachings she already believed in before her exile. She would not change her mind and say the Jedi were right about something after her bitter exile. Kreia was on a mission to prove that she was right and the Jedi were wrong.

-Kreia serving under Revan during the Mandalorian Wars is something I can’t picture her doing. She likes to be the master; the one in charge; that way she is in control. She’s also someone who prefers to resolve conflicts through pacifism and manipulation, even to a point to play tricks on people’s minds, not violence. I believe it was stated that the Jedi thought Kreia “died” during the Mandalorian Wars; never stating she was killed. Not everybody who died during the Mandalorian Wars was a part of it.

-Kreia hates Atris with a passion. Why would she want to leave her child with Atris of all people? She would have manipulated that situation differently and we know she’s good at getting what she wants. If anything, she would have tried to keep, perhaps hide her and use her for her cunning purposes. This reminds that if Kreia wanted to hide Brianna’s existence from the Jedi Council, she would have gotten away with it. Anybody who knows Kreia knows she’s very clever.

There are other questions I have thought up in the past about this whole situation that I haven’t brought to attention. If anything, I hope I’ve made enough points why I can’t buy into it so at least you understand my personal point of view.

It’s possible that a revelation could come out and say that Kreia and Kae are the game person. If that were to happen, I would be one of the first to admit I was wrong. The only thing that would puzzle me is that some things wouldn’t add up with the whole situation and there would have to be holes to fill so there would be nothing that contracts the revelation. That way it’s not bad story telling. I would find that hard to do to be honest.

I’m more in the boat that it’s something that probably will never be resolved. Perhaps “no comment” was mentioned about the situation by Chris Avellone (I believe it was him) was because he wanted to leave something for us to talk about and debate. If I was in his shoes, I probably would have said the same thing just to keep the debate alive and keep something fresh about a game that is many years old. Those who know me best know that is something I’m very capable of doing and enjoy watching people debate and get a few good laughs, especially if I knew I was responsible for the reason why it’s still debated. Maybe it would be a good thing to leave unsolved. That way we have something to talk about for a game that is closing in on four years.

Am I here to change your mind? No. What would be the point of that to be honest? Most people who go at each other back and forth trying to change other people’s minds already have made up their minds on what they are going to believe so trying to change it is pointless. The debates become pointless because many times bitter feelings towards the other person you’re debating can develop because both sides are suborn.

Once someone sets their mind to something, most likely they’re not going to change it. Life has taught me that many people won’t even accept the truth even when it’s revealed to them, which is why I love Carth’s quote that you see in my signature because I have a great respect for those who can accept the truth when it’s presented in front of them, even if they don’t like it. People’s pride and/or ego are the only thing that holds them back in those situations because they have this obsession about having to be right about almost everything. I’m already seeing signs of this when I skim through this debate.

Interested in hosting a your KOTOR or TSL mod at FileFront? Send your mod HERE and we'll validate it as soon as we can! FileFront is a good way to get publicity for your mod as we get 1000's of visitors everyday. Is my LucasForum PM box full again? If you really need to reach me, PM me at YouTube under the username: Shem L -- Watch my KOTOR videos! Download my mods from FileFront!

My guess, is that like numerous other things in TSL, discovering that Kreia is Kae was cut content, or possbly not even finished by the time of TSLs release. It is true that the Handmaiden's role is limited, though I don't see what that has to do with it. Can you please explain, Shem?

Well, yes, Kreia claims she was thrown out because of her beliefs, but it would not be the first time Kreia lied, would it? What is important to remember is that people change. Shem is absolutly right in thinking that Kreia certainly would not be following Revan to war. Possibly the war changed her, but that is just speculation.

Did Handmaidens mother give her to Atris, or did she just end up there because she was a half sister? I honestly don't remember the answer to that. If HM says her mother left her there, then Shem has made a good point.

I choose to believe that Kreia is Kae because of the evidence presented in Ravnas' link. Each one of those scraps alone can be easily debunked, but all together...hmm, thats a lot of coincidences, too many to just brush off as circumstantial IMHO.

I never got the whole Kreia/Kae thing. A lot of the arguments make absolutely no sense, like the "Kae + Traya = Kreia" one. (It's almost as bad as Sideous = Sifo-Dyas)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shem

Kreia hates Atris with a passion. Why would she want to leave her child with Atris of all people?

Maybe she had to give Brianna up to Atris for some reason and that's why she hates her. But then again, if this were true Kreia probably would've said something to Brianna. It's possible that we didn't see every interaction on the Ebon Hawk, but I think that would just be bad storytelling.

I never got the whole Kreia/Kae thing. A lot of the arguments make absolutely no sense, like the "Kae + Traya = Kreia" one.

Eh, that's just the tip of the iceberg. What evidence there is is very vague and ambiguous, with good reason--Kreia's past is supposed to be mysterious. If we knew the entire truth, well, that would kill the mystery. K2 is like that; you just have to look at what's there and decide for yourself.

As for the other, no one ever said Kae left Brianna with Atris. Brianna mentions that she lived with her father several years after Kae's supposed death (she would have only been thirteen or fourteen at the time of Malachor. So if anyone left Brianna with Kae, it would be Yusanis or someone else in the family.

And as for Kreia's interactions with Brianna, Kreia doesn't like anybody. It wouldn't surprise me if Kreia hated her child; after all, she claims that's why Kae was exiled. She clearly hates Brianna (and everybody else that still breathes), and more importantly she hates her past. If Brianna were her daughter, Kreia would certainly not come out with it. So again, this isn't strong evidence that Kreia is Kae, but it isn't evidence of the opposite, either.

I hate how KOTOR cut so much. But that was never in cut material was it?

Not to the best of my knowledge, no. To be honest, I don't think we need to look to the "cut content" to see the pieces. It's the same thing with movies. Some people really like it when the director leaves some stuff unspoken or hinted at and trusts the audience to be able to put it together. Personally, I like it when I'm not bludgeoned over the head with something because the act of putting it together makes me feel closer to the characters. I really do think that same dynamic is a work here.

Of course, not everyone shares this viewpoint, hence why Michael Bay films do so well here in the U.S.

-Why wasn’t that revealed in the game itself? Kreia died, end of story. What would be the point of not revealing it after the game’s events because now it becomes a side issue which really weakens the plot behind it if it were true.

-Why hasn’t it been revealed after 3 ½ years since the game has been released? What are they waiting for? Don’t say KOTOR III because that would be something that would distract the story of the next chapter of the game series. The only way that would work out well is if both Kreia and Brianna were main characters in that game. That wouldn’t be the case.

What was the point of not revealing the HK factory? The point of not having Atton dying against Sion? That's cut content's point, if there's any.

As for why it's not been revealed after 3 years and a half... It's one thing to admit they've cut something because players noticed there is unused content in the game files. It's another to say straightly "And you couldn't guess it 'cause files aren't in, but we also cut this, we decided to ditch that, we did not have enough time for this, and we also scrapped that. Heh. Could never guess we discarded so many things, could you?". That's called saving face.

Avellone's answer to Emperor Devon shows this quite well, IMO. He can't say anything that would show how Obsidian was pressured by LucasArts (how many times did he say all was his fault?), but he still feels "sorry" for not revealing such an important (and thanks to fans' awareness, evident) part of the plot.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shem

-The female Exile is now considered the canon way of playing the game. That means the Handmaiden’s role is has been limited to just stealing the Ebon Hawk, telling your party to lay down their weapons, asking Atris about caring for the Exile once, and other optional conversations you could have with her at the Polar Region. Once you leave, her small role in the game is over.

Wizards of the Coast just released their Campaign Guide for Knights of the Old Republic. They say Brianna followed the Exile. Whether they forgot that the Exile is now female, or they were perfectly aware of it (Leland Chee had already said that "maybe" she followed her) is unimportant. Now it's canon.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shem

-The hints used to support the theory they’re the same person are easily debunked making it just pure speculation without conclusive facts.

Taken individually, yeah, the hints seem pure coincidences. Added together, it just looks way too big to be coincidences.

Indeed, there's no such "I'm your father" intended for the Exile, meaning Kreia's choice was not motivated by a secret, plot-twisting reason. This developper note only applies to this - the reason why Kreia chose the Exile. It does not refer to whatever relation may or may not exist between Kreia and Brianna.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shem

-Kreia makes it clear that she was cast out because of her teachings and beliefs. It was also stated that Kae was exiled for having a child. In TSL, it was clear that Kreia is against love, but wants to prove that her teachings are right. If love was something she thought was right, she would be in the same boat as Jolee Bindo in how she felt about it. If she did believe in love, she wouldn’t have changed her mind about it because that would prove in her mind that one of the Jedi teachings was correct and I don’t think she would dare do that. If there were any issues she agreed with the Jedi on; it would be teachings she already believed in before her exile. She would not change her mind and say the Jedi were right about something after her bitter exile. Kreia was on a mission to prove that she was right and the Jedi were wrong.

Let's put it this way: Kae's teachings do not please the Council, but they still see that she manages to turn her pupils away from the Order ("all my pupils have been failures who went to war", or something like that).
They are itching for a reason to cast her out, but they need a good reason for it (they can't just say that's because of her teachings. The best way to make people read a book is to publicly announce you forbid anyone to read it).
Out of luck, they learn she's bonded to Yusanis. Better, she's got a daughter with him. So they go all "zOMG u has make a baby, u not has rigth lulz! we casts u out!!!!!!11Lim(x->0)=(sin(x)/x)" and cast her out.

We then have two reasons why Kae was exiled. The official, Council-approved one, because she's had a daughter. As we know, that's a stupid reason, as at this era numerous Jedi were allowed to have children (and the wives/husbands who go with it, of course). But, eh, they had to cast her out, and they had to do it quickly, so they did not really bother with finding a good reason.
The informal one, the one they want to keep secret: Her teachings were dangerous to their Order.
Kreia is the only one that is mentionned to have been exiled due to her teachings. Every times we hear about Kae, she's said to have been exiled due to her daughter. IMO that means that the Council's been quite successful at hiding the truth, and that only Kreia knows this truth.
I personally like to interpret Kavar's "I thought you died in war" this way: "Dang, we've been trying to get you out of the scene so hardly, we've been casting you out so you would have nothing else to do than follow Yusanis to war and die there without spreading your sh*t any further, and you still managed to survive?!! Crap!"

But you made another point here though - Kreia's not really a love supporter. Well, nobody's born as a cryptic old manipulative witch. People change during their life. It's even more true when we talk about Kreia, who's always been trying to find "the truth", with Jedi teachings, with Sith teachings, finally with her own philosophy. I would not be surprised if during her travels in the realm of truths, she had had a sojourn in the "Love's the answer to everything" island.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shem

-Kreia serving under Revan during the Mandalorian Wars is something I can’t picture her doing. She likes to be the master; the one in charge; that way she is in control. She’s also someone who prefers to resolve conflicts through pacifism and manipulation, even to a point to play tricks on people’s minds, not violence. I believe it was stated that the Jedi thought Kreia “died” during the Mandalorian Wars; never stating she was killed. Not everybody who died during the Mandalorian Wars was a part of it.

True, Kreia as a warrior sounds weird. Not much to say here, except the "people change during their life", though I'm not convinced myself.

Though, Kreia is not all for pacifism. Quite the contrary. She strongly believes the Echani motto that "people find their purpose in conflict". "Apathy is death", "Being helped is being weakened", all this stuff shows she thinks conflict is what makes people strong.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shem

-Kreia hates Atris with a passion. Why would she want to leave her child with Atris of all people? She would have manipulated that situation differently and we know she’s good at getting what she wants. If anything, she would have tried to keep, perhaps hide her and use her for her cunning purposes. This reminds that if Kreia wanted to hide Brianna’s existence from the Jedi Council, she would have gotten away with it. Anybody who knows Kreia knows she’s very clever.

After Yusanis got killed by Revan, and she started her sojourn to Malachor V, she may have started not to care about her "family" anymore. That'd be the pivotal moment between the warrior Kae, fighting alongside Yusanis, hoping to win the war to return triumphally and prove the Council wrong, and the manipulative Traya we know.
Anyway, I don't know if Kae ever cared about her daughter. Brianna's the one who is officially responsible for her exile, after all.
I like to think that Kae left Brianna under Atris' guard as a bomb that would explode later. Brianna is the only Handmaiden that ever questionned Atris' orders. These questions and her connection to the Force are Kreia's heritage. And which Handmaiden had the closest relation to Atris? Brianna. She dared asking things to her mistress that the others would not.
So it might be going a bit too far in the conspiracy theory, but I suspect Kae knew that Atris had doubts about the Jedi way and thus let her keep Brianna, who would not follow her orders as blindly as the other Sisters, and would participate to her fall.

Now, I'm not trying to convince anyone either. This thread's been active for so long, everybody is holding their grounds now. If someone at Obsidian just arrived and said "Okay guys, that's been fun to watch you debatting of this during all this time, but, heh, we thought it'd be nice from us to tell you that, er... Kreia's not Kae. And that's it.", well, I'd just accept it (of course, not without an evil cackle and a loud "But you'll see, one day I'll be riiiiight!!", but that's not important :P). The thing is, you were asking questions, so I felt compelled to answer them, with answers I think/hope to be true.

Just debatting for debatting's sake. Keeps mind sharp

"Do you think I seek the death of all living things? There is no victory in such things.
I do not want to win our war like this, little Jedi. When I win, I wish it to be because I was right, my teachings true."
- Kreia, Jedi Master, Sith Lord

The difference here is I was pointing out my issues to why Kreia isn't Kae. I never once tried to debate someone one-on-one. Plus, your counter debates can be easily debunked. That's the problem with this whole theory and that is it is easily debunked on every point.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gavroche

We then have two reasons why Kae was exiled. The official, Council-approved one, because she's had a daughter. As we know, that's a stupid reason, as at this era numerous Jedi were allowed to have children (and the wives/husbands who go with it, of course). But, eh, they had to cast her out, and they had to do it quickly, so they did not really bother with finding a good reason.

Bastila making it clear that Jedi are not suppose to fall in love was true back then as it was in the Prequel era. So saying they needed to find a reason is a big stretch as was many of your other arguments. Plus you didn't even talk about the part where Kreia is very smart. If she wanted to hide the fact she had a child, she would have succeeded.

Now, if you were trying to put my mind at ease with my many issues, it didn't work. You have to believe many things that contradict Kreia's personality and people don't change so quickly, especially in the time frame when it was suppose to happen.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gavroche

Though, Kreia is not all for pacifism. Quite the contrary.

She prefers it. It's quite strange for a Sith Lord to be the way she is, but that is her first preference if all possible. This is why she was a historian. It keeps her in the Jedi Library like Jocasta Nu instead of being put into situations where she has to fight a lot.

Again, you have to speculate a lot of things to make this theory happen to a point where the main character in this is way out of character. The older you get, the less likely you strange so drastically; you stay more set in your ways.

With the fact that this hasn't be revealed is not good story telling because now the character involved is dead and is irrelevant to the next chapter of the KOTOR story. To throw in this "twist" in KOTOR III would be taking up time that should have been in TSL and what would be the point of taking the story off track just to do that? Then they would have to explain a lot of plot inconsistencies with Kreia's character that they better have an explanation ready so it all makes sense. I feel like I'm talking to the people who believed Palpatine was a clone of Sidious theorists before ROTS in a way. There would have been a lot to explain how that would have worked all in sake to have a twist in the Prequels like they did in ESB, which would have been sidetracked the whole plot to have it make sense. Yet, it was simpler to just have Palpatine = Sidious and people catch on really quickly if they didn't realize that before. Same thing here; lots to be explained to make it all make sense.

We're coming on four years since the game was released and only us fanatics have this fresh in our heads. Do you know how many people who watch my videos on YouTube have forgotten a lot about what has happened since they last played the games years ago? Even main characters are forgotten about, or what their roles were. To the average person who would play KOTOR III learning of this would probably be very confusing and then wondering why such a side issue is being brought up. KOTOR III would get a lot of criticism in story telling.

If my foresight to what can happen in the future with this isn't good enough for you to understand why this isn't a good idea, then I don't know what else to tell you.

Interested in hosting a your KOTOR or TSL mod at FileFront? Send your mod HERE and we'll validate it as soon as we can! FileFront is a good way to get publicity for your mod as we get 1000's of visitors everyday. Is my LucasForum PM box full again? If you really need to reach me, PM me at YouTube under the username: Shem L -- Watch my KOTOR videos! Download my mods from FileFront!

You're right, despite the Sunrider or Draay Jedi families, love was not allowed in the Jedi Order. So maybe it was a good reason to cast Kae out. But if she was Kreia, then I believe it's only an "official" reason.

<off-topic />I don't see any reason to make KotOR III involved here. Of course Kreia is dead and will not have any role to play in K3. Does this prevent us from digging more inside characters' backstories? I hope not.
I mean, if we can't discuss Kreia being Kae because it will confuse K3 players, Team Gizka might as well not release their Restoration Project. I don't see why Bioware would care about Kreia in their K3, so I guess we can safely discuss about obscure points of the plot and let "the average KOTOR III players" play their game and forget about the characters two months later.
I don't know why we're involving these guys. They don't care about the the Kreia = Kae theory, they don't care about the HK factory, abotu Kaevee, all they care about is "when is the game coming?" and "when is the next game coming?".

I may be overlooking the damage that such a retcon would cause to K3, but I just can't see why "average players" would bother about events in TSL if they are such forgetful persons. They just simply don't care anymore about the game, if we consider their comments on your videos. And I've never been expecting Bioware to try to retcon it, that's not their job. KOTOR III clearly has no role in this affair to me.

I was not trying to debate you "one-on-one". I was seeing you had precise issues about the theory, so I provided the answers I thought correct, as I would have done with anyone who had the patience to show why the whole theory was wrong in his opinion. You had such patience, so it would be rude to just ignore the post you made, because it would mean ignoring your opinion.
I'm not standing against every single guy who does not support the theory, I'm not taking it personnally. I'm (trying to) bringing counter-arguments to those who bring arguments, because I believe it's the point of forums.
I can accept that my points are easily debunked. In fact, they could even have been debunked in a previous page in this thread, and in this case I'm just bothering everybody while making the debate circle '^^

I'm agreeing with you on one thing, though. Believing in this theory brings far too much contradictions in Kreia's character. If Obsidian ever intended her to be Kae, I wish they had the time to develop the whole thing so those contradictions disappear. But as of now, Kreia = Kae does not fit well her character.

"Do you think I seek the death of all living things? There is no victory in such things.
I do not want to win our war like this, little Jedi. When I win, I wish it to be because I was right, my teachings true."
- Kreia, Jedi Master, Sith Lord

Yeah, the evidence is pretty overwhelming. I guess that those that need to have a "smoking gun" will not be satisfied until a dev comes right out and spoon feeds it to us.

That’s a fantastically odd position for you to take, Achilles. There’s as much clear evidence in this fragile theory as there is for Creationism. Just because you’ve managed to join some dots doesn’t mean an image was supposed to be there in the first place. Consider for a moment that they may just be dots: just as a series of coincidences throughout history are just coincidences...

I would like to point out that Kreia is always one for mystery and ambiguity – she gives you a lot of leverage to insert any theory you would like about her, especially as Kreia’s personality allows any commentator to manipulate her words to appear as solid facts or else dismiss them as clear lies. In fact, I could spend this post weaving together a number of different pieces of evidence and create an argument that Kreia is, in fact, Krynda Draay – or even Nomi Sunrider. I could make it fairly convincing, at least on the surface, and suddenly such an idea would not seem so farfetched: it's just another way of joining up dots without numbers, after all.

It would be best to take a more objective look at these dots, myriad as they are, without reading deep between the lines. I won’t pick it apart entirely: I don’t have the time. However, I’d like to deal with a few points which have come to my attention:

Kreia and Kae both "died" in the Mandalorian Wars: That this is true is not even a coincidence. Billions died in the war, including a great number of Jedi: Kae is not a special corpse. Both Kreia and Revan apparently "died", yet as has been said previously in this thread, villains and heroes in comic books come back from the dead all the time. Kreia could be one of any number of MIA female Jedi.

Kae's body was never found: Though this is true, it is unlikely that any bodies at all were recovered from Malachor. When the Remote recharged the Mass Shadow Generator, I doubt that the cadavers he encountered in the buried ships had been disturbed since their demise. Malachor is a graveyard for millions, as was Alderaan three thousand years later. Bail Organa's body was never found - but it doesn't mean he's alive. It just means he's been vaporised.

Brianna bears the face of her mother: That Kreia looked much like Brianna at the age of 25 is naught but speculation: the differences in age are too great to make a judgement, and as such any resemblance or apparent difference is really only a matter of personal opinion. On a different note, though Brianna “bears the face of her mother” it does not mean she would or would not instantly recognise her based on this premise, especially considering that she also bears vestiges of Echani heritage and apparently has never actually seen her mother.

The Handmaiden possesses Kae’s Robe: First of all, I do not think the robe was explicitly stated to have been the one worn by Arren Kae on Malachor V. It could be, though as Kae’s body was "never found" this is unlikely. This said, any self-respecting Jedi would not have just a single set of robes: see the difference between Vrook's robes in K1 and TSL, and likewise with robes belonging to Jolee Bindo. Or, to move into movie territory, the varieties of robe worn by Anakin Skywalker and Obi Wan across the prequel trilogy. Perhaps the robes that Brianna wears were the ones her mother left with Yusanis on Echani?

Kae cannot have been exiled because of love: We all understand that the Jedi High Council is a changing body of people with often different opinions and views. The Jedi Masters who forgave Jolee after the Great Sith War are entirely different people to those who judged Arren Kae; and in the wake of a war rather than the onset of one, were probably in a more forgiving mood too. It is no great surprise that Kae was exiled for having a child (even assuming it was the sole reason for her dismissal) in a period when going against the grain brought heavy retribution: the Covenant fiasco, the reaction to the Revanchist movement, the sentencing of Kreia and the entire Exile affair serve to illustrate this.

That’s a fantastically odd position for you to take, Achilles. There’s as much clear evidence in this fragile theory as there is for Creationism.

Not even close for reasons that I won't go into here for fear of derailing the thread. I'll be happy to take the matter up with you via PM if you'd like to discuss it further.

Quote:

Originally Posted by nine.roses

Just because you’ve managed to join some dots doesn’t mean an image was supposed to be there in the first place. Consider for a moment that they may just be dots: just as a series of coincidences throughout history are just coincidences...

Which begs the question: Why would the devs go out of their way to place a bunch of dots that aren't supposed to draw a picture? I suppose that they just coincidentally created all those coincidences.

Quote:

Originally Posted by nine.roses

I would like to point out that Kreia is always one for mystery and ambiguity – she gives you a lot of leverage to insert any theory you would like about her, especially as Kreia’s personality allows any commentator to manipulate her words to appear as solid facts or else dismiss them as clear lies.

Except that it isn't Kreia weaving this tale, but the writers themselves.

Quote:

Originally Posted by nine.roses

In fact, I could spend this post weaving together a number of different pieces of evidence and create an argument that Kreia is, in fact, Krynda Draay – or even Nomi Sunrider. I could make it fairly convincing, at least on the surface, and suddenly such an idea would not seem so farfetched: it's just another way of joining up dots without numbers, after all.

Feel free to do so. I suspect that when you try to put it to paper, it won't work, but I'll be happy to eat my words if I'm wrong.

Quote:

Originally Posted by nine.roses

I won’t pick it apart entirely: I don’t have the time.

How convenient.

Quote:

Originally Posted by nine.roses

However, I’d like to deal with a few points which have come to my attention:

<snip>

All of these can be addressed by the point I've already made: why would the devs place all these "dots" where they did if they're not related? Lack of something better to do?

Emperor Devon, consider this: in KotOR, the Revan revelation was streamlined and complete. The penny would drop for the adroit player before reaching even half way through the revelation cutscene. The hints through the game were heavy, yes... but subtle. Arranged together they formed a full picture.

However, if it takes 44 screenshots of events spread across two playthroughs of the game for one to twig onto an idea, then that is poor writing indeed. Many of your fellow theorists see the site you have presented me as gospel proof of Kreia's identity. What I see are lines of text taken out of context then arranged to display similarities.

Quote:

In fact, that's one of the only things that someone in the game comes right out and says--Kreia, in fact. Twice, even.

"True - but as one trained in the Force, you know that true coincidences are rare."

and

"It is no coincidence. There is some larger plan at work here."

That's one of the things about K2: even the smallest details are important.

That's from the point of view of an in-universe being. Inside the Star Wars universe, to quote (or misquote, as I can't entirely remember) Master Vandar "there are no coincidences, there is only the Force". Which matters for nothing at all when doing an objective dissection of an unknown story element from our point of view: real life coincidences in story writing do occur, and are far from rare.

Emperor Devon, consider this: in KotOR, the Revan revelation was streamlined and complete. The penny would drop for the adroit player before reaching even half way through the revelation cutscene. The hints through the game were heavy, yes... but subtle. Arranged together they formed a full picture.

Different developer/writer.

Quote:

Originally Posted by nine.roses

However, if it takes 44 screenshots of events spread across two playthroughs of the game for one to twig onto an idea, then that is poor writing indeed.

Matter of opinion. I, for one, thought it was great that you got a little bit more of the story each time depending on which perspective you played. Kinda like how real life works.

Quote:

Originally Posted by nine.roses

Many of your fellow theorists see the site you have presented me as gospel proof of Kreia's identity. What I see are lines of text taken out of context then arranged to display similarities.

The site? No. Scorchy simply condensed it all onto one page. The credit belongs with the writers, not the guy doing the walkthrough.

Quote:

Originally Posted by nine.roses

That's from the point of view of an in-universe being. Inside the Star Wars universe, to quote (or misquote, as I can't entirely remember) Master Vandar "there are no coincidences, there is only the Force". Which matters for nothing at all when doing an objective dissection of an unknown story element from our point of view: real life coincidences in story writing do occur, and are far from rare.

Again, different developers and writers with a different message and world view. Surely you acknowledge this, correct?

Quote:

Originally Posted by GiygasUnlimited

What? Who said they were going out of their way?

I did. You don't just sit down in front of MS Word and start randomly hitting keys, hoping to get something passable. A story is something that you craft over multiple reviews, edits, etc. The fact that it ended up in the final draft means that they worked to get it there. It didn't just "appear" by mistake.

That's from the point of view of an in-universe being. Inside the Star Wars universe, to quote (or misquote, as I can't entirely remember) Master Vandar "there are no coincidences, there is only the Force".

The line you're thinking of is "there is no luck; there is only the Force", spoken by Zhar in K1.

Quote:

Which matters for nothing at all when doing an objective dissection of an unknown story element from our point of view: real life coincidences in story writing do occur, and are far from rare.

I'll put it this way. Does everybody know what Home Improvement is? You never see Al Borland's mother's face. You never see Wilson's face. Therefore they are the same person, right? Try to disprove me.

I'll put it this way. Does everybody know what Home Improvement is? You never see Al Borland's mother's face. You never see Wilson's face. Therefore they are the same person, right? Try to disprove me.

Actually I don't (I don't watch television). Since I don't have context for the analogy, should I assume that the writers intentionally write in bits that would lead us to suspect that they are the same person? If so, then your conclusion that they are the same person is probably well-founded. If not, then your analogy would seem to argue that since Handmaiden has a mother and that all mothers are female then it's reasonable to assume that Mira is also Handmaiden's mother. All you're presenting is one common feature, so the logic works for both arguments.

Not even close for reasons that I won't go into here for fear of derailing the thread. I'll be happy to take the matter up with you via PM if you'd like to discuss it further.

Very well. Nevertheless, see below for what I said was "fragile evidence".

Quote:

Which begs the question: Why would the devs go out of their way to place a bunch of dots that aren't supposed to draw a picture? I suppose that they just coincidentally created all those coincidences.

You're misinterpreting my metaphor, so here's another one: those dots are a few stars in a galaxy full of them. A different picture - another theory - can be drawn from entirely different stars in a different order, but that doesn't make it correct. You say "all those coincidences", but even across the entire argument I only see a few. Most points don't even pass as coincidences.

Quote:

Except that it isn't Kreia weaving this tale, but the writers themselves.

You're either just misunderstanding me or else being stubborn. You know you cannot prove to me that the writers clearly intended for this theory of yours to fit. So until Chris Avellone states that Kae is Kreia, I cannot accept that statement.

Quote:

Feel free to do so. I suspect that when you try to put it to paper, it won't work, but I'll be happy to eat my words if I'm wrong.

I would, were it not for the fact that "it won't work" means "you cannot convince me with such a method". That said, though I know you as a man who always sticks to his guns, I also recognise that you place a great value on the truth. Should further evidence come to light either for or against this argument, I know I can trust on you to shift your opinion and stand by it.

Quote:

How convenient.

Please don't try to antagonise me.

I dislike large walls of text, and also dislike spending too long a period preparing an answer which I doubt would convince many anyway. My aim with that post was to pick holes in some arguments put forward in this thread.

As there is not much evidence for this argument, picking apart every supposition made by various posters previously across the many threads on this topic would be an excersise in futility. I'm sure you recognise the same strong adherance to a single theory in previous threads.

Quote:

All of these can be addressed by the point I've already made: why would the devs place all these "dots" where they did if they're not related? Lack of something better to do?

Achilles, look carefully at each line of text in the game and tell me that no other lines have such ambiguous pragmatic meaning just BEGGING for a plot hook to come and attach itself.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Achilles

Different developer/writer.

True, quite true. Yet an example, I feel, of how revelations should be done. Nevertheless, I know it's an opinion - and one you can disregard at your leisure.

Quote:

Matter of opinion. I, for one, thought it was great that you got a little bit more of the story each time depending on which perspective you played. Kinda like how real life works.

Oh, quite. I enjoyed hearing Mical's past as a female as much as I enjoyed Brianna's as a male. I also love the differences between light side and dark side playthroughs.

Yet with every sub-element of the story I can mention in the game, the beginning, middle and end could be encountered in one playthrough of the game. Very nice, very neat. Rather like the character subquests in KotOR, if you don't mind me referring to the prequel again.

But it is odd, don't you think, that this hypothetical Arren Kae story would be the only one spread across the two playthroughs?

Quote:

The site? No. Scorchy simply condensed it all onto one page. The credit belongs with the writers, not the guy doing the walkthrough.

You rest your entire argument on an assumption that the writers intended your story to exist even though not a single confirmation has been made by them or has been found hiding amongst the dialogue notes.

Sir, you cannot second-guess Chris Avellone or put words into his mouth. Until there is actual hard fact, in-universe (which it would seem you would not prefer), or out-of-universe in the form of the actual written words of the writers themselves (a simple "yes", perhaps?), this issue may never be resolved.

Many theories have existed on similarly "unshakeable" evidence which has proven to far from unshakeable. This theory is much the same. That said, I'm sure an exponent of the scientific method such as yourself would actually still recognise it as a theory and not a proven fact, yes? Otherwise we would not even be arguing this point: we would be on the same ground.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JCarter426

Eh...not buying it.

See below. The Force is not responsible for real-life coincidences.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Achilles

Again, different developers and writers with a different message and world view. Surely you acknowledge this, correct?

You're avoiding the crux of my point, and furthermore you are wrong: in this case, Kreia's message and view is much the same as Zhar's. (Edit: Yes, thanks JCarter. In any case, "luck" and "coincidence" are in the same boat...). This said, my original point was not about Master Vandar; he was just an illustration.

"True - but as one trained in the Force, you know that true coincidences are rare"

So tell me then, does this statement hold true in reality?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Achilles

I did. You don't just sit down in front of MS Word and start randomly hitting keys, hoping to get something passable. A story is something that you craft over multiple reviews, edits, etc. The fact that it ended up in the final draft means that they worked to get it there. It didn't just "appear" by mistake.

Again, you’re assuming that it’s even there at all. The text highlighted by Scorch serves a primary function, to impart the relevant information or else to mislead. This spectre of a secondary function you envisage – as if the developers were trying to tell us something through pragmatic meaning – may only be a figment of your imagination. Arren Kae appears to fill a large empty gap which has otherwise not been dealt with. Your natural reaction is to plug it with a character which seems to fit, and allow the rife ambiguity to mask your assumptions and leaps of faith. This does not mean you are correct. It just means you know how a jigsaw piece can fit in a hole which isn’t its own.

You were correct in your dissection of his point but in this case in general, however, the burden of proof is actually on you Achilles.

Quote:

Bill: "I think that some people have psychic powers."
Jill: "What is your proof?"
Bill: "No one has been able to prove that people do not have psychic powers."

As demonstrated, the burden of proof is on Bill. To rephrase the above:

Quote:

Achilles: "I think that my theory of Arren Kae and Kreia is correct."
nine.roses: "What is your proof?"
Achilles: "No one has shown me that Chris Avellone did not plan this. Thus, it is correct."

I apologise if I sound patronising in doing this: I'd rather know that I've covered it from the right angle than have several pointless posts full of misunderstanding.

Finally, I notice you didn't deal with my statements dealing with the content of the argument itself, instead choosing to "<snip>". Should I be led to believe, then, that I am on a correct heading within these select areas of the argument?

I will skip over the needless foray into how the Force doesn't exist in real life to influence events understood to be "coincidences", as I find it likely you misunderstood due to my indirect handling of the subject. Anyway...

Quote:

Originally Posted by JCarter426

Why would the writers include a bunch of unrelated coincidences in a story that claims there's no such thing? That would defeat the whole purpose of the story.

Because they didn't know they were coincidences: only the fans created the links. Like I said, they are not all truly coincidences in any case. Some are just mild similarities with speculation attached.

Because they didn't know they were coincidences: only the fans created the links. Like I said, they are not all truly coincidences in any case. Some are just mild similarities with speculation attached.

Except that's completely not true. Mr Avellone isn't allowed to comment since canon is no longer in his or Obsidian's hands, but what he has said suggests that it's not just a coincidence.

Except that's completely not true... there's no way these are just unrelated coincidences that the writers unintentionally place into the game.

As I said to Achilles, the burden of proof is not on me.

Quote:

What he has said suggests that it's not just a coincidence.

What he said suggests nothing but what you decide to read into it.

Also, moving onto the subject of canon... if Kae was Kreia in the game, if it was canon, LucasArts would let him comment on it. There would be no reason for him to deny the answer to us. Something along the lines of "Well done! I'm glad you discovered that little hidden gem. We worked hard on it."

Very well. Nevertheless, see below for what I said was "fragile evidence".

You seem to be very willing to say that they are "fragile" but at the same time unwilling to say anything substantive as to why they should be considered such. Case in point:

Quote:

Originally Posted by you

I won’t pick it apart entirely: I don’t have the time.

Quote:

Originally Posted by you

I dislike large walls of text, and also dislike spending too long a period preparing an answer which I doubt would convince many anyway.

More on this later.

Quote:

Originally Posted by nine.roses

You're misinterpreting my metaphor, so here's another one: those dots are a few stars in a galaxy full of them.

I'm not missing your metaphor at all. In fact, with each revision your metaphor becomes increasingly untenable. A "galaxy" full of "stars"? How many subplots did the writers throw in here? I'm sure I could probably count a few, but your argument is that there are thousands? None of which linked in any significant way except for how we choose to see them?

Okay, let's try this. At what point in the game do any of the characters come right out and tell us specifically what the "mass shadow generator" is? Do they tell us how it was made? What it looked like? Specifics on how it worked?

I don't recall seeing any of this, yet I (and I imagine many others) somehow managed to figure it out. Same writing device, different sub-plot, yet no debate. Why not?

Quote:

Originally Posted by nine.roses

A different picture - another theory - can be drawn from entirely different stars in a different order, but that doesn't make it correct. You say "all those coincidences", but even across the entire argument I only see a few. Most points don't even pass as coincidences.

Okay. Then why are you here?

Quote:

Originally Posted by nine.roses

You're either just misunderstanding me or else being stubborn.

I didn't misunderstand you at all. You attempted to divert the discussion by pointing out that Kreia bends the truth, etc. This is a valid observation, but has absolutely nothing to do with any story not being told by her. So either your trying to change the story or you don't understand the implications of the argument that you made.

Quote:

Originally Posted by nine.roses

You know you cannot prove to me that the writers clearly intended for this theory of yours to fit. So until Chris Avellone states that Kae is Kreia, I cannot accept that statement.

That's your standard of proof and you're welcome to it. I believe that I addressed people that need smoking guns in an earlier post.

[off topic] If I'm ever implicated in a major crime, I hope that you're on my jury.

Quote:

Originally Posted by nine.roses

I would, were it not for the fact that "it won't work" means "you cannot convince me with such a method". That said, though I know you as a man who always sticks to his guns, I also recognise that you place a great value on the truth. Should further evidence come to light either for or against this argument, I know I can trust on you to shift your opinion and stand by it.

I'm absolutely convinced by reasonable arguments and I very much appreciate you acknowledging that even though we are currently at a disagreement over this topic.

If you do have a case, I would like to see it and if it is persuasive, then it should be accepted (not just by me, but everyone). However without having seen it, it's impossible for any of us to know what it is.

Quote:

Originally Posted by nine.roses

Please don't try to antagonise me.

Achilles' Pet Peeve #73,129: People that say "I don't have time to make my argument" (but want to me to accept their argument) instead of just making the argument. My knee-jerk reaction is that said person doesn't actually have an argument and instead wants to insult my intelligence by bull****ing me. I don't think I know anyone who likes it when people try to bull**** them.

So please don't antagonize me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by nine.roses

I dislike large walls of text, and also dislike spending too long a period preparing an answer which I doubt would convince many anyway. My aim with that post was to pick holes in some arguments put forward in this thread.

This is a double-standard. We should jump through countless hoops to prove our argument to you, but you shouldn't have to jump through any to convince us of yours.

But to your credit, you said that you don't want to make an argument per se, so much as pick holes in ours. Which means this isn't an dialog/exchange of ideas in good faith; It's just you being argumentative.

Quote:

Originally Posted by nine.roses

As there is not much evidence for this argument, picking apart every supposition made by various posters previously across the many threads on this topic would be an excersise in futility. I'm sure you recognise the same strong adherance to a single theory in previous threads.

I have no problem with tentative adherence to supportable theories. My problem is blind adherence to poorly formed hypothesis that have no tenable supporting arguments. Luckily, that isn't the case at hand.

Quote:

Originally Posted by nine.roses

Achilles, look carefully at each line of text in the game and tell me that no other lines have such ambiguous pragmatic meaning just BEGGING for a plot hook to come and attach itself.

I'm not sure what your point is.

Quote:

Originally Posted by nine.roses

True, quite true. Yet an example, I feel, of how revelations should be done. Nevertheless, I know it's an opinion - and one you can disregard at your leisure.

As you say then, it's a matter of preference. Just because you don't like the way something is done doesn't mean it hasn't happened though.

Quote:

Originally Posted by nine.roses

Oh, quite. I enjoyed hearing Mical's past as a female as much as I enjoyed Brianna's as a male. I also love the differences between light side and dark side playthroughs.

Yet with every sub-element of the story I can mention in the game, the beginning, middle and end could be encountered in one playthrough of the game. Very nice, very neat. Rather like the character subquests in KotOR, if you don't mind me referring to the prequel again.

I disagree that this happened. I think they all tied into the same narrative but from different perspectives. They aren't separate stories as you seem to suggest.

Quote:

Originally Posted by nine.roses

But it is odd, don't you think, that this hypothetical Arren Kae story would be the only one spread across the two playthroughs?

It isn't. It just happens to be the one you're being the most critical of.

Quote:

Originally Posted by nine.roses

You rest your entire argument on an assumption that the writers intended your story to exist even though not a single confirmation has been made by them or has been found hiding amongst the dialogue notes.

Again, smoking gun. Some people need them. Others don't.

Quote:

Originally Posted by nine.roses

Sir, you cannot second-guess Chris Avellone or put words into his mouth. Until there is actual hard fact, in-universe (which it would seem you would not prefer), or out-of-universe in the form of the actual written words of the writers themselves (a simple "yes", perhaps?), this issue may never be resolved.

Again, standards of proof. You need a smoking gun. I do not.

Quote:

Originally Posted by nine.roses

Many theories have existed on similarly "unshakeable" evidence which has proven to far from unshakeable. This theory is much the same. That said, I'm sure an exponent of the scientific method such as yourself would actually still recognise it as a theory and not a proven fact, yes? Otherwise we would not even be arguing this point: we would be on the same ground.

Once again, you seek to drag the thread off topic. Distraction perhaps?

The scientific method is process of making observations (i.e. gathering "facts", which go in the front in, not out the back end as you erroneously assert above), forming hypothesis to explain said observations, then testing the hypothesis via various means to see if they hold up to scrutiny.

Interestingly, this process is precisely what was used to come to this conclusion. Observations were made during game play. Hypothesis were formed. Predictions were made and tested (for instance, if Kreia were Handmaiden's mother, then we would need some other evidence pointing to her being Master Kae as well. Lo and behold, we get some. A lot if you play as a female). So if hypothesis can be tested and passes, then the resulting Theory is scientifically sound.

Now if you can find a flaw with the methodology or evidence which disproves the Theory (which is what science does; it rules out or disproves hypothesis based on evidence), then you have a case. Waving your arms around an crying about how you don't like the end result or don't believe that is says what it does is neither helpful nor persuasive.

Quote:

Originally Posted by nine.roses

You're avoiding the crux of my point,

No, I'm not. You presented the work of a different writer as a valid argument against the story created by this one. Unrelated. That is neither my fault nor my doing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by nine.roses

"True - but as one trained in the Force, you know that true coincidences are rare"

You seem to be making my point for me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by nine.roses

So tell me then, does this statement hold true in reality?

My personal opinions about reality have very little do with the dramatic license taken in a fictional work. Hint: We don't really have lightsabers or hyperspace travel either.

Quote:

Originally Posted by nine.roses

Finally, I notice you didn't deal with my statements dealing with the content of the argument itself, instead choosing to "<snip>". Should I be led to believe, then, that I am on a correct heading within these select areas of the argument?

Oh, I absolutely did. I simply dismissed them all at once instead of one by one. Here is my comment again. I hope it helps (emphasis added so that we can avoid further confusion):

Quote:

Originally Posted by me

All of these can be addressed by the point I've already made: why would the devs place all these "dots" where they did if they're not related? Lack of something better to do?

Thanks for reading.

Quote:

Originally Posted by nine.roses

You were correct in your dissection of his point but in this case in general, however, the burden of proof is actually on you Achilles.

For his argument? It absolutely is not.

Quote:

Originally Posted by nine.roses

As demonstrated, the burden of proof is on Bill. To rephrase the above:
<snipped example>

Except that you're using the wrong example. The burden of proof for "Bill's" claim is on Bill.

GiygasUnlimited presented a claim and then asked me to disprove it. The burden of proof for his claim is on him. It is not on me. That was the point. I hope this helps.

Quote:

Originally Posted by nine.roses

I apologise if I sound patronising in doing this: I'd rather know that I've covered it from the right angle than have several pointless posts full of misunderstanding.

No, you don't sound patronizing at all. You do sound as though you're having a small measure of difficulty keeping track of all of the various arguments that are being made and what they are in relation to.

Last edited by Achilles; 08-20-2008 at 09:23 PM.
Reason: Whoops, you added more :)

You seem to be very willing to say that they are "fragile" but at the same time unwilling to say anything substantive as to why they should be considered such.

If you do have a case, I would like to see it and if it is persuasive, then it should be accepted (not just by me, but everyone). However without having seen it, it's impossible for any of us to know what it is.

Pet peeve: People that say "I don't have time to make my argument" (but want to me to accept their argument) instead of just making the argument.

[/QUOTE]

BUT!:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Achilles, twice

All of these can be addressed by the point I've already made: why would the devs place all these "dots" where they did if they're not related? Lack of something better to do?

So what’s the point in me furthering my argument? Should I even both copying and pasting Shem’s big ol’ heap of an argument into this thread?

We made points tackling the veracity of your claims; their fragility. Yet you are so confident you are right, you haven’t actually dealt with a single one. You say you want a case against which the veracity of your argument can be tested, but then you dismiss it because it doesn't corroborate your view. You never bothered to confront my points for their individual merits.

You just simply do not recognise the possibility that those dots were never intended to be connected in such a manner. That there is no pattern to them at all. That they were intended to perform their primary function, and not be given a hidden meaning. That they are not special points in the storyline. My metaphor having failed at its purpose, I have tried to tell you in another manner: but still you fail to understand, and simply cannot grasp the concept. You may be hearing me, but you certainly aren't listening to me.

I cannot present a full case, Achilles, until you get over the above hurdle. All my points will simply be dismissed by the above comment a third time...

Quote:

This is a double-standard. We should jump through countless hoops to prove our argument to you, but you shouldn't have to jump through any to convince us of yours. But to your credit, you said that you don't want to make an argument per se, so much as pick holes in ours. Which means this isn't an dialog/exchange of ideas in good faith; It's just you being argumentative.

Then we are both guilty. I’m having to jump through a hoop just so you’ll even consider my original evidence against your theory. You say “we should jump through countless hoops to prove our argument to you”, yet I haven’t seen you do anything but bat away my comments like stray flies.

Furthermore, the burden of proof is on you. If you are willing to testify in this thread that your theory is unequivocally correct, then it is down to you to prove it. However, as you have conveniently said this is obviously a "no smoking gun" scenario with only circumstantial evidence, this is proving extremely difficult and thus has resulted in an unfortunate degree of frustration.

Quote:

Okay, let's try this. At what point in the game do any of the characters come right out and tell us specifically what the "mass shadow generator" is? Do they tell us how it was made? What it looked like? Specifics on how it worked?

I don't recall seeing any of this, yet I (and I imagine many others) somehow managed to figure it out. Same writing device, different sub-plot, yet no debate. Why not?

We didn't need any one of those factors. We are told who made it, what it does, and its role in the final battle of the Mandalorian Wars. We know it requires a great amount of power to function, and that it is a machine that was still apparently servicable a decade after its previous use. What else do we need to know, really? It serves its function in the story without one having to burrow deep for more clues. You'll notice that ALL of the above are answered directly in the story, not indirectly. We are told a pear is a pear. No sleuthing required.

Quote:

Okay. Then why are you here?

I don't quite understand what you're trying to get at with this question. Could you elaborate, please?

Quote:

I didn't misunderstand you at all. You attempted to divert the discussion by pointing out that Kreia bends the truth, etc. This is a valid observation, but has absolutely nothing to do with any story not being told by her. So either you're trying to change the story or you don't understand the implications of the argument that you made.

I am not changing the story. I'm just pointing out that certain traits within a (admittedly well-written) character may lead you to see details in the speech written for her... which simply aren't there. You are crediting the writers in writing in another layer of meaning, but your claim has not been adequately substantiated by them or anyone else. I could have written it differently, like so:

"I would like to point out that the writers have written Kreia as a character shrouded in mystery and ambiguity, and her dialogue is often constructed to be extremely vague. Thus, the way in which the character has been written gives you a lot of leverage to insert any theory you would like about her, especially as the myriad possibilities for hidden meaning allows any commentator to manipulate the dialogue written for her to appear as solid facts for their case or else dismiss them as the biased falsehoods of a clearly unreliable narrator."

Quote:

[off topic] If I'm ever implicated in a major crime, I hope that you're on my jury.

You make it sound like you'd need Hercule Poirot to solve the case. This I doubt. Nevertheless, I'd need more than light circumstantial evidence to see anyone convicted. Otherwise... I could be putting an innocent man away, couldn't I? We wouldn't want a miscarriage of justice.

Quote:

I'm absolutely convinced by reasonable arguments and I very much appreciate you acknowledging that even though we are currently at a disagreement over this topic.

Thank you. I hope we’ll get over this disagreement soon then. 

Quote:

I have no problem with tentative adherence to supportable theories. My problem is blind adherence to poorly formed hypothesis that have no tenable supporting arguments. Luckily, that isn't the case at hand.

I suppose it's a matter of opinion. We seem to have differences over what we consider a “poorly formed hypothesis”.

Quote:

I disagree that this happened. I think they all tied into the same narrative but from different perspectives. They aren't separate stories as you seem to suggest.

Well, I disagree that they are intertwined to such a degree as you imply. With Brianna and Mical, we don't have to remember anything then play it a second time - differently - to come to a conclusion. Are you saying that this Kae/Kreia thing operates at a higher level? Like it’s a prize for the most attentive analysts?

Quote:

It isn't. It just happens to be the one you're being the most critical of.

If you are willing to say such a thing, then you should no doubt be willing to enlighten me as to what these similar hidden storylines are.

Quote:

Once again, you seek to drag the thread off topic. Distraction perhaps?

Off topic? Of course not. What I said was entirely on-topic: your theory is a theory. It has not been proven. It is not definite.

Quote:

(i.e. gathering "facts", which go in the front end, not out the back end as you erroneously assert above)

A truth, a fact; call it what you will. A proven theory is factual in nature. There is no “well, possibly but maybe not” to it.

Quote:

The scientific method is process of making observations, forming hypothesis to explain said observations, then testing the hypothesis via various means to see if they hold up to scrutiny.

I'm holding this up to scrutiny, and it seems extremely fishy to me. If you need to be an expert at deduction and follow a rather unusual path of gameplay to come to this conclusion... in a game full of hidden surprises, falsehoods and mysteries then you are impressive indeed. Were it not for Scorch, then most of the people in this thread would have spent years playing through the game without ever tagging on.

Tell me truthfully: was it just in two playthroughs that you tagged onto this revelation? Four, perhaps? A year? Or only when you read the Wookieepedia entry on Arren Kae? It doesn't sound like a true theory, it sounds like a false lead.

Quote:

Interestingly, this process is precisely what was used to come to this conclusion. Observations were made during game play. Hypothesis were formed. Predictions were made and tested (for instance, if Kreia were Handmaiden's mother, then we would need some other evidence pointing to her being Master Kae as well. Lo and behold, we get some. A lot if you play as a female). So if hypothesis can be tested and passes, then the resulting theory is scientifically sound.

The scientific method requires accuracy. You may be a scientist and philosopher, and as I have discovered you are strong in your field. But I do not think you are truly a scholar of language.

Was it, to a great degree, a fair test? Did you foray into various possible pragmatic meanings; analyse the syntax of the sentences so that there was no doubt as to the clarity of your findings? Did you study the context within which each statement was set (both in terms of the physical location of all appropriate characters if applicable, and in terms of the tone of the conversation in general), and determine from this that some statements indeed had elements that were out of place with the general message of the utterance? Did you study the sequence in which the various elements of the revelation were made (if there was any at all), and determine from this whether it followed normal literary convention and thus was stronger or weaker for it? Did you value each comment based on its reliability? Did you truthfully do all of this without an unacceptable degree of bias?

This is the effort to which you must go in such a situation as this, where there is no “smoking gun” as you say; no direct reference. Otherwise your method counts for nothing.

Let’s test.

For your reference, this is what Scorch put on his site as key evidence (the other stuff is simply fuel):

Kreia: “But that is my belief, since I knew Revan long ago… as a master knows their apprentice… He came to me, yes. Both before and after he knew himself… But in the end, he turned back to me. When he realised there was nothing more to be learned from the Jedi – except how one could leave them forever… I knew her mother. She was a Jedi Knight. A master – named Arren Kae. She joined the Mandalorian Wars after the shame of her birth was revealed… Revan welcomed her. She was said to be a skilled warrior. Beautiful. And strong in the Force.”

Mical: “Revan had many masters, Zhar, Dorak, Master Kae before Kae left for the Wars. Towards the end of his training, he sought out many to learn techniques. It is said that he returned to his first master at the end of his training, in order to learn how he might best leave the order.”

He seemed content with this, but to be fair we must also consider these items:

Mical: “Revan had many masters, including Zhar, Kae, and Dorak... and towards the end of the training, Revan sought out many other teachers to learn certain techniques. And it is said that he went to his first - and final - master to learn how to leave the order entirely, as she had. (After Kreia interrupts and wipes his mind). I do not recall who Revan's master was... strange.”

Before I go on… could you kindly direct me to any other quotes that I have missed? I’d like to be extremely precise in this.

Quote:

No, I'm not. You presented the work of a different writer as a valid argument against the story created by this one. Unrelated. That is neither my fault nor my doing.

Avellone followed the selfsame guidelines. My argument was not based around Zhar’s quote: I could quite easily have not included it and have my argument stand on Kreia’s quotes alone.

Quote:

You seem to be making my point for me.

The coincidences we were talking about were coincidences in elements of text written by Obsidian writers. “But as one trained in the Force” indicates that the Force stands in for coincidences. In that universe, it may be true. In this one, the Force does not exist so therefore the following statement “you know that true coincidences are rare” is not true based on that premise.

There are coincidences in the dialogue of KotOR II. That’s not the Force, that’s human error.

Quote:

For his argument? It absolutely is not.

I apologise for not being clear. The burden of proof is on you in this case in general. I had thought you'd understand thanks to my illustration.

Quote:

The burden of proof for "Bill's" claim is on Bill.

Exactly... and you are in the position of Bill:

Quote:

Originally Posted by nine.roses

Achilles: "I think that my theory of Arren Kae and Kreia is correct."
nine.roses: "What is your proof?"
Achilles: "No one has shown me that Chris Avellone did not plan this. Thus, it is correct."

Quote:

Originally Posted by Achilles

No, you don't sound patronizing at all. You do sound as though you're having a small measure of difficulty keeping track of all of the various arguments that are being made and what they are in relation to.

No, I just suppose I am not being clear and that you are constantly misunderstanding the gist of my messages. I had thought I was mostly precise in my prose, but from your reactions it would seem that I am not.

Quote:

That's your standard of proof and you're welcome to it. I believe that I addressed people that need smoking guns in an earlier post.

I do not believe anything in which there is an unreasonable amount of doubt. These "hints" are too light, too vague - I do not require the gun, but perhaps a little smoke. And, at least, a gunshot wound...

Your point is either worth presenting or it is not. If you think that it is not, then that is fine, however we're under no obligation to roll over for an argument that you don't feel is worth presenting.

Quote:

Originally Posted by nine.roses

Should I even both copying and pasting Shem’s big ol’ heap of an argument into this thread?

I don't see Shem's posts, so I don't know what his arguments are.

Quote:

Originally Posted by nine.roses

We made points tackling the veracity of your claims; their fragility.

Saying that you've done something and actually doing it are two completely separate things.

Quote:

Originally Posted by nine.roses

Yet you are so confident you are right, you haven’t actually dealt with a single one.

Because you haven't presented anything substantive. Your entire case (as presented) is "those are all just coincidences". No explanation as to why we should agree and no rebuttals to the counter arguments that they are not coincidences.

Quote:

Originally Posted by nine.roses

You say you want a case against which the veracity of your argument can be tested, but then you dismiss it because it doesn't corroborate your view.

Doesn't corrobrate the evidence. Big difference.

We know what was said. That can't be changed. What ever hypothesis you want to drum up has to at least take into account what is there. Simply dismissing it as coincidence isn't persuasive (for the record, I am not stating that it cannot be a coincidence, simply I have no reason to believe that it is and many reasons to believe that it is not).

Quote:

Originally Posted by nine.roses

You never bothered to confront my points for their individual merits.

I didn't need to, as they all were addressed by the counter argument that I've presented twice and you've yet to respond to once.

Quote:

Originally Posted by nine.roses

You just simply do not recognise the possibility that those dots were never intended to be connected in such a manner.

Of course I recognize the possibility. It's possible that a team of monkeys could have randomly typed those lines in while everyone was on a Starbucks run and no one caught it. I guess the real question is how probable that is.

Quote:

Originally Posted by nine.roses

That there is no pattern to them at all.

Says you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by nine.roses

That they were intended to perform their primary function

Which was? This is important, so please answer.

Quote:

Originally Posted by nine.roses

...and not be given a hidden meaning.

Says you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by nine.roses

That they are not special points in the storyline.

Says you. Please present supporting evidence for your claim. You have the burden of proof for supporting your argument. It is not up to any of us to disprove it (although we could be showing, as we have already, that there is at lease one plausible pattern).

Quote:

Originally Posted by nine.roses

My metaphor having failed at its purpose, I have tried to tell you in another manner: but still you fail to understand, and simply cannot grasp the concept. You may be hearing me, but you certainly aren't listening to me.

Nice dodge.

Quote:

Originally Posted by nine.roses

I cannot present a full case, Achilles, until you get over the above hurdle. All my points will simply be dismissed by the above comment a third time...

Perhaps that denotes an issue with the strength of your case (the one you haven't presented because you don't have time...even though you have time to argue with me).

Quote:

Originally Posted by nine.roses

Then we are both guilty. I’m having to jump through a hoop just so you’ll even consider my original evidence against your theory. You say “we should jump through countless hoops to prove our argument to you”, yet I haven’t seen you do anything but bat away my comments like stray flies.

I'm not sure what this means. The case for Kreia being Kae has already been presented to you. No double standard exists on this end.

Quote:

Originally Posted by nine.roses

Furthermore, the burden of proof is on you.

For my claim. Yes, that's correct. The evidence for my case has been presented a few times, although not by me. I fully endorse Scorchy's conclusions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by nine.roses

If you are willing to testify in this thread that your theory is unequivocally correct, then it is down to you to prove it.

That's fine. However the same applies to your case. So please, feel free to dispense with the distractions at any time.

Quote:

Originally Posted by nine.roses

However, as you have conveniently said this is obviously a "no smoking gun" scenario with only circumstantial evidence, this is proving extremely difficult and thus has resulted in an unfortunate degree of frustration.

For people that need a smoking gun, yes, I imagine it would be. I guess that's where reasonable doubt comes in and all that. Again, if I'm ever on trial, I hope to see you in my jury box.

Quote:

Originally Posted by nine.roses

We didn't need any one of those factors. We are told who made it, what it does, and its role in the final battle of the Mandalorian Wars. We know it requires a great amount of power to function, and that it is a machine that was still apparently servicable a decade after its previous use. What else do we need to know, really?

I feel my point being made for me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by nine.roses

It serves its function in the story without one having to burrow deep for more clues. You'll notice that ALL of the above are answered directly in the story, not indirectly. We are told a pear is a pear. No sleuthing required.

I disagree on all counts. Which is why I raised that point. You were able to put the pieces together on your own and now have a narrative that you're willing to stand behind even though you were not spoon fed all the pieces. Some of us have done the same thing with other parts of the story.

Quote:

Originally Posted by nine.roses

I don't quite understand what you're trying to get at with this question. Could you elaborate, please?

That if you go back and look, you'll find that we're told much less about the MSG than you recall. But still you managed to put together what you were supposed to and having done it have a much clearer picture than the pieces provided. Yet we're not debating that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by nine.roses

I am not changing the story. I'm just pointing out that certain traits within a (admittedly well-written) character may lead you to see details in the speech written for her... which simply aren't there. You are crediting the writers in writing in another layer of meaning, but your claim has not been adequately substantiated by them or anyone else. I could have written it differently, like so:

"I would like to point out that the writers have written Kreia as a character shrouded in mystery and ambiguity, and her dialogue is often constructed to be extremely vague. Thus, the way in which the character has been written gives you a lot of leverage to insert any theory you would like about her, especially as the myriad possibilities for hidden meaning allows any commentator to manipulate the dialogue written for her to appear as solid facts for their case or else dismiss them as the biased falsehoods of a clearly unreliable narrator."

This is completely unrelated to anything, as Kreia isn't the one telling the story. So again, you're are either changing the story or missing the point.

Quote:

Originally Posted by nine.roses

You make it sound like you'd need Hercule Poirot to solve the case. This I doubt. Nevertheless, I'd need more than light circumstantial evidence to see anyone convicted. Otherwise... I could be putting an innocent man away, couldn't I? We wouldn't want a miscarriage of justice.

I don't think it's me that needs a private investigator

Again, by dismissing the evidence that is there as "light" you act as though you can simply wish it away. Handmaiden doesn't accidentally have two braids just like Kreia. None of the pieces of the puzzle introduced by the various characters made it into the final draft haphazardly. You make it sound like the writers just threw a bunch of words against a wall without any thought to craft or intent whatsoever. I think this is a particularly stubborn opinion to hold which does nothing to help you or your case.

Quote:

Originally Posted by nine.roses

Thank you. I hope we’ll get over this disagreement soon then.

Quote:

Originally Posted by nine.roses

I suppose it's a matter of opinion. We seem to have differences over what we consider a “poorly formed hypothesis”.

Indeed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by nine.roses

Well, I disagree that they are intertwined to such a degree as you imply. With Brianna and Mical, we don't have to remember anything then play it a second time - differently - to come to a conclusion. Are you saying that this Kae/Kreia thing operates at a higher level? Like it’s a prize for the most attentive analysts?

Of course you do. You don't get the "mother" part of the story without playing as a male (and talking to Handmaiden) and you don't get much of the "Master Kae" part of the story without playing as a female (and talking to Disciple). So, if you call that "operating at a higher level", then yes, I'm saying that. And yes, I imagine that many people who enjoy figuring things out for themselves and/or appreciate storytellers that don't beat them over the head with subplots would see this as a reward.

Quote:

Originally Posted by nine.roses

If you are willing to say such a thing, then you should no doubt be willing to enlighten me as to what these similar hidden storylines are.

I made mention of the MSG earlier. Another might be Hanharr's backstory.

Quote:

Originally Posted by nine.roses

Off topic? Of course not. What I said was entirely on-topic: your theory is a theory. It has not been proven. It is not definite.

You keep elluding to my discussions on the topic of religion. If you could stop, that would be great.

Quote:

Originally Posted by nine.roses

A truth, a fact; call it what you will. A proven theory is factual in nature. There is no “well, possibly but maybe not” to it.

No such thing. All science is tentative. But facts still go in the front in, not out the back end. Theories are models of understanding and can always be changed with new evidence (i.e. new facts).

Quote:

Originally Posted by nine.roses

I'm holding this up to scrutiny, and it seems extremely fishy to me.

That's fine. Tell us why? Otherwise you're simply being argumentative for the sake of being argumentative. In other words, either you have an argument or you do not.

Quote:

Originally Posted by nine.roses

If you need to be an expert at deduction and follow a rather unusual path of gameplay to come to this conclusion... in a game full of hidden surprises, falsehoods and mysteries then you are impressive indeed. Were it not for Scorch, then most of the people in this thread would have spent years playing through the game without ever tagging on.

You assume much. You set the bar much higher than it needs to be and you assume that no one figured this out before him.

I think he did a great job of summarizing it, but I think you're wrong to assume that he was first.

Quote:

Originally Posted by nine.roses

Tell me truthfully: was it just in two playthroughs that you tagged onto this revelation? Four, perhaps? A year? Or only when you read the Wookieepedia entry on Arren Kae?

I've played the games dozens of times. I don't recall the exact playthrough, but for what it's worth I only read Scorchy's walkthrough a few months ago. I hope that helps.

Quote:

Originally Posted by nine.roses

It doesn't sound like a true theory, it sounds like a false lead.

And you are certainly welcome to your opinion. However your opinion alone is insufficient to convince me of anything, let alone that all the evidence that we have for this theory over here is wrong.

Quote:

Originally Posted by nine.roses

The scientific method requires accuracy. You may be a scientist and philosopher, and as I have discovered you are strong in your field. But I do not think you are truly a scholar of language.

What does this have to do with anything?

You aren't judge and jury here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by nine.roses

Was it, to a great degree, a fair test? Did you foray into various possible pragmatic meanings; analyse the syntax of the sentences so that there was no doubt as to the clarity of your findings? Did you study the context within which each statement was set (both in terms of the physical location of all appropriate characters if applicable, and in terms of the tone of the conversation in general), and determine from this that some statements indeed had elements that were out of place with the general message of the utterance? Did you study the sequence in which the various elements of the revelation were made (if there was any at all), and determine from this whether it followed normal literary convention and thus was stronger or weaker for it? Did you value each comment based on its reliability? Did you truthfully do all of this without an unacceptable degree of bias?

Again, you're setting the bar much higher than it needs to be. You can attempt to gish gallop all you'd like, but setting up false goalposts isn't going to accomplish much.

Instead of wasting your time with diversionary tactics, perhaps you should just sit down and tell us what your counter theory is so that we can have something to compare our theory against. Please make sure that it explains all the evidence that is available, otherwise it won't be much of a theory. Thanks in advance.

Quote:

Originally Posted by nine.roses

This is the effort to which you must go in such a situation as this, where there is no “smoking gun” as you say; no direct reference. Otherwise your method counts for nothing.

No it isn't and I think you know it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by nine.roses

Let’s test.

Let's.

Quote:

Originally Posted by nine.roses

For your reference, this is what Scorch put on his site as key evidence (the other stuff is simply fuel):

<snip>

I don't think you get to decide that, but okay.

Quote:

Originally Posted by nine.roses

Before I go on… could you kindly direct me to any other quotes that I have missed? I’d like to be extremely precise in this.

Nope. You cited Scorchy's walkthrough and then dismissed everything else as "simply fuel". You made your bed, now lie in it. Don't wiggle out of your argument by asking me to track down lines of dialog from a game that takes 40 hours to play.

Quote:

Originally Posted by nine.roses

Avellone followed the selfsame guidelines. My argument was not based around Zhar’s quote: I could quite easily have not included it and have my argument stand on Kreia’s quotes alone.

So it's okay to channel Avellone (or at least divine his intentions) when you do it, but not for anyone else? Double standard again.

Since you did not address my rebuttal, I think it stands.

Quote:

Originally Posted by nine.roses

The coincidences we were talking about were coincidences in elements of text written by Obsidian writers. “But as one trained in the Force” indicates that the Force stands in for coincidences. In that universe, it may be true. In this one, the Force does not exist so therefore the following statement “you know that true coincidences are rare” is not true based on that premise.

There are coincidences in the dialogue of KotOR II. That’s not the Force, that’s human error.

And this is a stretch. Again, the writers didn't simply throw sentences together without any thought to the story or intent. That isn't how the writing process works and if someone who took Honor's English in college knows that then I can only imagine that a self-appointed "scholar of language" such as yourself would know that as well.

The author is saying that true coincidences are rare and that someone that has been trained to be in-tune with the fabric of universe itself should be aware of this. "I would expect this kind of thinking from someone that didn't know better. Not from someone like you that should".

Quote:

Originally Posted by nine.roses

I apologise for not being clear. The burden of proof is on you in this case in general. I had thought you'd understand thanks to my illustration.

No that wasn't clear at all because that wasn't the context of the conversation. But your apology for taking the conversation out of context and thereby trying to change the subject is accepted.

Quote:

Originally Posted by nine.roses

Exactly... and you are in the position of Bill:

In the vein that you just introduced, yes. In the context of the conversation you butted into, no. In that conversation, GiygasUnlimited is Bill. Please try to keep up.

Quote:

Originally Posted by nine.roses

No, I just suppose I am not being clear and that you are constantly misunderstanding the gist of my messages. I had thought I was mostly precise in my prose, but from your reactions it would seem that I am not.

I can give a line-by-line analysis if you'd like, however you might find it embarrassing. Perhaps it would simply be best to stand by your apology for the misunderstanding and let the matter lie?

Quote:

Originally Posted by nine.roses

I do not believe anything in which there is an unreasonable amount of doubt. These "hints" are too light, too vague - I do not require the gun, but perhaps a little smoke. And, at least, a gunshot wound...

All of those have been presented and still you doubt. You've said it yourself: You require something clear and blatant from Chris Avellone and nothing else will do. So "reasonable doubt" doesn't even factor, because you've already stated that you require a smoking gun.

And again, that's your right. However that doesn't give you the right to tell everyone that disagrees with you that they are wrong.

Canon is determined by what the canon sources show, not what a dude who made it says. Besides, he only said she was likely to be ~50 as of K2, so even if you follow the rule that what a person says overrules what is shown, her age is still simply unknown, at best.

"There is something going on in time and space, and beyond time and space, which, whether we like it or not, spells duty." -Winston Churchill

"For of all sad words of tongue or pen, The saddest are these: 'It might have been!'" -John Whittier

I'm pretty sure that it's pretty obvious if you play through one time as a male that Kreia is Kae and handmaidens mother i mean she hated the fact that handmaiden was on board because she's her daughter and part of he (if not the entire) reason she was expelled from the jedi order, and the whole thing about Revan returning to his first master Kae. Kreia says in the end he returned to me his first master.

There is no Palpatine. No Empire. No Jedi. There is no Light. No Dark... Just you, and I, here, now.